A blog by Jay Livingston -- what I've been thinking, reading, seeing, or doing. Although I am a member of the Montclair State University department of sociology, this blog has no official connection to Montclair State University. “Montclair State University does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein. The content provided is that of the author and does not express the view of Montclair State University.”

Subscribe via Email

Skill Transfer - Quote of the Day

February 11, 2011Posted by Jay Livingston

People who made a ton of money in the business world sometimes run for public office. Their entry level aims are usually somewhere near the top – governor, senator, even president. And they often tout their business success as evidence that they’ll be excellent public servants or that they “know how to create jobs.”

It reminds me of high school – the student government elections and Assembly Day when the jock’s speech always centered on the idea that his experience on the football team qualified him to be president of the student body.

I was thinking about this again when I read Sudhir Vankatesh’s piece in Wired about prostitution. He notes that the Internet has not been kind to the pimp role. Hookers have become much more independent.

I met 11 pimps working out of midtown Manhattan in 1999, and all were out of work within four years. One enlisted in the military; two have been homeless. Only one now has a full-time job, working as a janitor in a charter school.*

I imagined a pimp speechifying about his administrative role, his vast experience dealing with people, bringing buyers and sellers together – making a market really. All these qualified him for a leadership position in business or government. It’s the same kind of bullshit peddled by the quarterback in high school or the former CEO running for governor. The difference is that the pimps know it and take a more realistic view of their job history.

I asked one of them how pimping experience helps him in the legit economy: “You learn one thing,” he said. “For a good blow job, a man will do just about anything. What can I do with that knowledge? I have no idea.”

* Charter-school advocates often argue that these schools, freed from the union stranglehold over hiring and firing, can be much more effective in their personnel selection. I guess they have a point.

If I knew of sources data, I would have at least linked to them. There might be data out there, at least about the question of whether the skills people have (or acquire)that make them successful business people also make them better in elective office. Of course, defining terms like "better" would be a problem, and it would be hard to get a large enough sample. Sampling might be a problem too in the other question -- whether the occupational skills of pimps successfully transfer to other occupations. I'll check out the grant possibilities.

Bob, You’re right. I am skeptical about the idea that ability and success in one area (business, sports) makes for greater effectiveness in government. Maybe there’s systematic evidence out there, but I don’t know of it. (To be sure, there is anecdotal evidence on both sides, but when I wrote the post, I was not at all thinking of our recent “CEO president,” who made a bundle in the business of sports and yet was not necessarily a good president.)

But no, whatever slights I may have suffered in high school had nothing to do with student elections or athletes. What motivated the post was the contrast between the realism of the lowly pimp and the blather of the dudes running for office.

Bob. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I wasn’t saying that former pimps and former CEOs are equally qualified to be Senators. I was not comparing the skills of the CEO running for public office and those of the pimp (interesting though that might be). I was comparing their degrees of modesty and realism in claiming that their previous work qualified them for the job they were seeking. A former pimp applying for a job in HR, for example, might claim that he had acquired valuable job-relevant skills for that position. (“I’ve had extensive experience managing the careers of individual practitioners. This required skills of fostering co-ordination among them. I also did a lot of conflict resolution, both among the personnel and with our customer base.”)

But the pimp Vankatesh quotes knows that this sort of claim is bullshit. Former CEO’s seeking the governership or a US Senate seat as an entry-level job in government are less reserved in their assertions about the transfer of skills from one sector to another.

Bob. As I said above, I don't know of any systematic evidence one way or another. I can think of lots of reasons it would be hard to get -- the small number of cases, the lack of consensus on rating the performance of politicians, finding an appropriate comparison group, etc.

In the absence of such evidence, we have a choice: we can believe whatever a person running for office says about himself or herself, or we can be skeptical about such claims. I guess my inclination when evidence is lacking is to be skeptical about self-promoting claims, whether they come from a CEO or a pimp.

This is the dopiest argument I ever had the misfortune to look in on. Is someone here actually arguing that you need to be a government employee to be qualified for a government job? Does that mean that a soldier (Jackson, Eisenhauer), actor (Reagan), professor (Wilson), or planter (Washington) had no legitimate claim to run for president? Hack politicians only need apply? ... and then is the other side actually saying that the case makes no sense because there is no "data"? You need "data" to spot a dopy argument? Jeez... I recommend long sabbaticals all around to re-connect with life on earth.

As the subject line of the post indicates, it is not about whether an actor or soldier or linebacker or auto mechanic or whatever can serve admirably as an elected official. It's about whether the abilities that make someone effective in one specific area (the one I specified was business) will make him or her a better public official. People running for office often make that claim. Is the claim valid, or is it dopey (the word I used was bullshit)? Both Bob (I think) and I would prefer if there were systematic data on this question.